I just wanted to leverage the logical inconsistancy that even though two subjects may be the same they still experience different realities due to their seperate orientation in space.

The logical inconsistency is yours. If they have different experiences they are not the same.

Quote:

let's say set in a lab of the future with two indentical brains in a seperate vats being stimulated in identical ways.

Physically, there is no difference between these two brains and any other indentical inanimate objects, say, two rocks. However there is still a difference in each being a subject so they cannot be said to be like the two rocks anymore. This seems to defy empirical sensibilities.

If their brains really are identical, they will think identical thoughts, proved by research into twins who have similar brains and as a result think similar thoughts.

There is nothing l that says (in theory) two subjects cannot be identical, and have the same experiences and qualia. Therefore your argument that they *must* be different because they have subjectivity doesn't stand up.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.

The logical inconsistency is yours. If they have different experiences they are not the same.

Quote:

If their brains really are identical, they will think identical thoughts, proved by research into twins who have similar brains and as a result think similar thoughts.

There is nothing l that says (in theory) two subjects cannot be identical, and have the same experiences and qualia. Therefore your argument that they *must* be different because they have subjectivity doesn't stand up.

Thanks for the patience to iron that out, VoR.

It's all very interesting to ponder.

A larger consequence is that this discussion puts the final nail in the coffin on free will. If there is no property in humans that can produce randomness or uniqueness while all faculties are controlled in a laboratory setting, then determinism wins the day now and forever.

Even then, a computer can be programmed to spew random allocation of system resources, so how would be know that it was just programmed to behave this way? You can simulate subjectivity easily, and if a property of subjectivity is rationality also, then you can modify the programmining to randomize only to a certain threshold.

It's looking like a machine-universe, VoR. The Matrix without the waking up part.

So here we are, a summery of the discussion so far: consciousness is theoretically repeatable in the lab by using identical biological structures and electronically stimulating them in controlled conditions in vats, thus proving the material basis of the conscious mind.

That said, we still do not know how the biological structures (networks of neurons) in the brain manages to produce consciousness. Neurons appear to only produce simple pulses of electromagnitism, which are configured in such a way as to make consciousness emerges. The existance of such a configuration is still unknown. That is, it can only be postulated that a certain configuration of neurons is the true reason for consciousness or that such a configuration even exists. The only certainty is that somehow the involvement of the brain is necessary in the emerge of a conscious being.

It should be noted that this lack of explanation from a scientific perspective, still does not exclude a supernatural explanation for consciousness. Even when it can be established that the brain is essential for the conscious mind, we cannot exclude other possible sources of consciousness since there is no material explanation yet adequate to rule it out.

So at the conclusion of this discussion, I cannot prove that the soul exists, but only show that there still remains a plausible basis to believe that it does. What I can rule out, by considering the thought-experiment, is that without a brain, a subject cannot be conscious. Therefore, if life was to continue with any meaning beyond death, the brain would need be involved. That is, a new biological brain must be seamlessly integrated into from the last for consciousness to continue.

For those theologically minded, this is consistent with the ressurrection story. Meanwhile it provides concrete reasoning to dispute other dualistic notions which do not include the brain or an analog of it in notion of afterlife.

[...]

If this does not appear to be a reasonable conclusion to anyone, please continue to submit your objections for further discussions.